mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
ba75b44c3c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads API results and the chat guidance > - A decision card can be human-only and addressed to one person, and the teams catalog lists ready-made teams with their requirements > - When an agent tried to accept another person's card, the denial said only "human-only", so the agent told the asker to accept the card themselves > - When an agent recommended a catalog team, the guidance asked only for roles, so the agent left out the required skills > - This pull request makes the denial name the addressee as the only resolver, and asks agents to list a team's roles, required skills and configuration inputs > - The benefit is that chat answers send people to the right person and show what a team needs before install ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20206, #20220, #20239 **What happened** Alex wrote "I approve Riley's request." in Agent Chat. The pending card is human-only and addressed to Riley. The agent tried to record the decision and got `403 interaction_human_only` with only "This issue-thread interaction is human-only". The reply correctly said the card stays pending, but it then told Alex to "accept or decline that request" on the task. Alex cannot do that; only Riley can. In a second chat, a person asked "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". The agent recommended Product Engineering and its roles. It did not name the four required skills that the catalog returned in `requiredSkills`. **Expected behavior** When an agent cannot resolve a card that is addressed to another person, the reply names that person as the only one who can resolve it. The reply does not tell the asker to act on the card. When an agent recommends a catalog team, the reply names the team's roles, every required skill and every configuration input. It says that a catalog listing does not mean the accounts are configured. **Steps to reproduce** 1. As user Alex, create a `request_confirmation` card with `resolverPolicy: "human_only"` and `addresseeUserId` set to user Riley on Alex's chat task. 2. In that chat, write "I approve Riley's request." 3. Read the agent run. `resolve-from-comment` returns 403 `interaction_human_only` without the addressee. The reply tells Alex to accept or decline the card. 4. In a new chat, ask "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". 5. Read the reply. It names Product Engineering and its roles, but not its required skills. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-thread-interaction-resolution.ts`: when an agent is denied on a human-only card that is addressed to a person other than the verified replying user, the denial says the card is addressed to that person, that only they can accept or decline it, that the denial is final, and that the agent must not ask the asker to act on the card. The details include `addresseeUserId`. Cards without an addressee keep the old message. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the route adds the addressee's display name to that denial (`details.addresseeName` and the message). If the name lookup fails, the generic addressee text stays. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the teams catalog paragraph asks agents to name a recommended team's roles (`agentSlugs`), every required skill (`requiredSkills`, by ref) and every configuration input (`envInputs`), and to say that a listing does not mean accounts are configured. - Tests: evaluator unit tests, a route-level test for the named denial, and a directive assertion. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interaction-resolution.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/confirmation-comment-resolution.test.ts`: 4 files, all pass. - `tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: passes. - The change is cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-reply-completeness`. The live Runner E2E cells `questions-and-approvals.wrong-reviewer` and `teams.find-team` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. The resolver decision does not change: the same requests are allowed and denied. Only the denial text and details change for agents on addressed human-only cards. - The denial reads one user row for the display name. A failed read falls back to the generic text. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>